EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
George Clooney Isn't Helping Sudan
Clooney's well-meaning activism for the Nuba mountain people is rooted in a political culture that does not care for nuance
What does one immediately associate with Sudan? Darfur, allegations of genocide, a president indicted by the international criminal court and a mistreated south seceding from the north of the country. And now, George Clooney.
The actor George Clooney was arrested at a planned protest for Sudan in Washington DC on 16 March. (Photograph: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
As Clooney and his cohorts were arrested for their protest outside the Sudanese embassy in Washington DC on Friday, the preoccupation seemed to be not with the suffering of the Nuba mountain people (the cause Clooney was advocating for), but with celebrity activism. Stars are hoist by their own petard, in that they bring their star factor, but little gravitas, and it is excruciating listening to Clooney's beauty pageant contestant responses to what is actually going on in Sudan. But he's an actor, not a political expert or an academic. He wants to save lives. But how much impact does the US have on the Sudanese government? Very little at best. International involvement that is all stick and no carrot can be counterproductive.
But let's be fair to Clooney, and look beyond the snide comments and the jokes. It is admirable that he is willing to dedicate his time, health and resources to an issue he feels strongly about. I don't doubt that he is earnest. But it has rubbed Sudanese – the most important interlocutors – up the wrong way. The eye-rolling offence that most Sudanese took at this latest incident doesn't mean that they are necessarily fans of the government in Khartoum, but that they have a deep-seated suspicion of US selective moral outrage.
As a Sudanese, I am concerned not because I would like foreigners to stay out of internal affairs, but because the view Clooney is presenting to the world is not an accurate one. This is not out of any deliberate manipulation on his part, but Clooney's campaign is rooted in a political culture that does not care for nuance.
It all really goes deeper than the criticism aimed at his Enough Project, the Save Darfur campaign, or the "genocide paparazzi" satellite monitoring scheme – all of which are symptomatic of an overarching failure in US foreign policy, which promotes a black-and-white understanding of some situations, often underscored by moral superiority. After all, "Arabs are genocidally massacring blacks in the Nuba mountains" is far sexier and easier to digest than "the people of the Nuba mountains sided with the Southern People's Liberation Movement during Sudan's decades-long civil war between north and south, and after the secession of the south last year, a disgruntled SPLM candidate for governor lost what he believed were rigged elections and then took arms against the government in Khartoum in co-operation with the residual Nuba SPLM cadre, whose grievances had still not been addressed".
Clooney stated that the situation in the Nuba mountains was a "man-made tragedy by the government in Khartoum to get these people to leave". It is nothing of the sort. Khartoum is responding to a rebellion in the region (where the SPLM's agitating role is problematic to say the least) with little strategy and mass clumsy bombings, rolling makeshift oil drums full of explosives out of planes. It is apathetic to civilian deaths and not concerned with wiping out inhabitants of the Nuba mountains. This does not make the situation any less desperate, but it is an event that cannot be addressed in isolation from the conditions and provocations that precipitated it.
Sudan Change Now, a Sudanese opposition movement, published a letter to Clooney today stating :
"Portraying the regional conflicts in the country as a simplified war of Arabs and Africans concerns us. It does not fully capture the historical and political aspects of the conflict considering that the Sudanese government is a dictatorship and does not reflect the sentiments of the majority of the people. The regional conflicts in Sudan are not simple and are highly political with a strong basis on economic gains such as oil and other resources."
Rob Crilly of the Telegraph is correct when he writes: "The problem is that his campaign stems from the same misguided analysis that brought us Kony 2012. It is an analysis that reduces Africa to simple notions of good versus evil, and suggests that outsiders hold the key to finding solutions". Sudan is a country where a plethora of issues – such as tribal grazing rights, water availability, diversity of ethnicities and border demarcations – contribute to conflict. The situation is inflamed by decades of entrenched centralisation on the part of successive governments in Khartoum that have alienated the peripheries. Rebellion flares up in and is doused regularly, with fundamental grievances never addressed.
The current government in Sudan is not a benign one, and it might appear churlish not to support an out-and-out condemnation of its actions. But identifying the true nature of the problem enables us to come up with the right solutions. I would urge Clooney to team up with and extend resources to partners in Sudan who can influence the situation internally. It is his best chance of fulfilling his wish of ending up on the "right side of history".
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
45 Comments so far
Show AllTruly, Clooney has no interest in the Sudan or any of it's peoples. It's all good publicity for him. He's really aiming for a Nobel prize for Peace, especially now that he didn't get an Oscar for his role in the movie Descendants...
Hollywood has gone a long way in belittling and demeaning peoples of the world (mainly non-white). It's hardly likely that any star brought up in this atmosphere and who believes in his/her own hype manufactured by a fawning mainstream media would have the necessary knowledge and empathy to do anything meaningful and constructive for these peoples.
Even if they're sincere...
"Truly, Clooney has no interest in the Sudan or any of it's (sic) peoples. It's all good publicity for him."
Do you really believe that? Really?
Charlie Sheen's actions got him WAY WAY more headlines than what George Clooney just did. If he just wanted publicity, there are a lot of other means for him to get that.
God, I hate the "better activist than thou" mentality that pollutes CD so often.
George Clooney is no Charlie Sheen. Charlie Sheen is a pacifist and anti-imperialist, while the Sudan activists are almost always pro-war and pro-US intervention. They are the same bunch of liberals who call the thugs that have taken over Libya "freedom fighters", and who cheered as the bombs dropped on Belgrade. The old term for them, coined by Ed Herman (co author of "Manufacturing Consent") was the "cruise missile leftists".
Perhaps you are thinking of Martin Sheen?
Oops. That's right. Martin Sheen. I don't know what Charlie Sheen has done.
actually: "God, I hate the "better activist than thou" mentality that pollutes CD so often. Exactly!
In this case though Cloney is no more an "activist" than Kony 2012, it's all in fact neo-conservative demonization of any Arab led countries to steal natural resources, including shamefully Abbey Zimet's multiple articles here trying to brew up hate against Syria's government in a runup to more U.S. intervention there.
Enough!
Wow. Way to prove the point.
Yes, Abby wants nothing more than war in Syria. Totally. She loves war for oil, I'm sure of it.
"Actually" she does did you see the atrocity propaganda against Syria's government she posted here 3 weeks ago? Including a plea of
“What is going on, and why is no one stopping this murder in Homs that is happening every day?"
http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/02/22-1
What do you think is going to stop Syria's government from fighting foreign terrorists, praying for whirled peas? No, it's instead a naked plea for "humanitarian" intervention, so I stand by my statement 100% Abbey may not realize she is being played by the crony capitalists behind U.S. interventionism but that is the practical effect of her call to "stopping" Assad's government. Or maybe she is a full of shill for imperialism, who knows?
There are a lot of shady interests that have jumped into the Sudan conflict (unlike let's say the Congo wars which have gone on for a decade and a half) which is one reason it has gotten the attention it does. Just as in Kony2012, it is a worthwhile exercise to follow the media and see where it leads. Chances are if an issue has been taken up by prominent largely, non-political figures, there is a less than savoury angle.
I don't know whether George Clooney "gets" Sudan or not. I am not sure this writer gets it either. Aside from a lot of handwaving and excuse-mongering about "nuance", she doesn't give much of an explanation. If this were only a dispute of water rights or loyalty to remnant forces from the civil war, then who are the janjaweed and what are they doing staging raids on villages far from Khartoum and far from any water to which they might have a legitimate claim? Furthermore, even if the causes are as author Malik vaguely describes, them, why has the Khartoum govt cynically use them to perpetuate this mostly one-sided bloodbath? Why would there be 100,000s of refugees across Sudan's border living in squalor, if their "side" had some sort of reasonable defense against all this? Do most of these refugess even believe they are on a "side"? And why was there a civil war to begin with? Because the Islamic govt in the South couldn't tolerate people of different cultural, religious backgrounds, who were resistant to integrating with Khartoum's ridiculous, vain-glorious "Islamic" kleptocracy, maybe.
Yeah, sure. Clooney's just an ignorant Hollywood guy. Whatever she says. But having presented no reasonable alternative what does she think us ignorant Westerners are supposed to do? Work with Sudanese? Like what? There aren't Sudanese every bit as willing to exploit, oversimplify and propagandize the situation as her target self-interested Europeans and Americans? Which Sudanese is she talking about? I thought that NGO's had spent billions in the last few years trying to help Darfur refugees. If that ain't "working with the Sudanese" what is? How about if the Sudanese cut the crap and start talking to each other? How did Clooney's visit make that less likely?
Enough with the frickin excuses and with blaming the "white man". It''s like the inverse of the "white man's burden" mythology and it isn't helping the Sudanese one bit.
The writer says Clooney is not helping Sudan. Then what effect is he having? No effect? Making things worse? The writer doesn't say and it has to be one of the two.
News Flash: George Clooney isn't trying to teach Americans about Sudanese history. He's simply trying to shine a light on a situation that is resulting in brutal killing, not of soldiers but of civilians - including children. He's trying to get our government reps who DO know the history, involved. To stop the brutal killing. FOR SHAME, George - FOR SHAME! Give me a break.
The author needs to wake up and realize that the cultural relavatism canard doesn't work anymore. You're not living in 1746. It's 2012 and everyone is interconnected, more and more by the day. Speaking out against injustice EVERYWHERE is everyone's responsibility. The notion that Sudan is just going to take care of things "in house" and everyone else should STFU is not only absurd, it's offensive.
Finally, stop with the "white imperialism" horseshit. Speaking out against civilian massacre is something anyone should do. Shining a light on such travesties is one method of trying to stop them.
The author should thank George Clooney that his activism allowed her to get her snarky column published.
Not every bit of activism can be a Chomsky lecture. Sometimes, all you can do is shout, "LOOK OVER THERE!"
Thank you. Good critique of the article, which wouldn't have been written and published on CD without Clooney's arrest. Maybe another article on Darfur would have been, but maybe not.
The publicity stunt helps focus attention, how is that a bad thing.
Information is a good thing to spread around, not something to take possession of and hoard.
Here, Amnesty International (whose representatives were there when Clooney was arrested) is trying to make the most of the publicity:
http://tinyurl.com/7wayhlq
Thanks. I was beginning to question my financial support for Common Dreams after reading this article and most of the comments here. Yours is actually positive toward Clooney who, if nothing else, is TRYING to do something good in a world filled with apathy and selfishness.
I constantly fail to see how bashing well-intentioned celebrities furthers the progressive agenda. It reminds me of the Canadian media's backlash against Daryl Hannah when she protested the XL Pipeline, because she referred to the Alberta oil sands as "tar sands". Uneducated Hollywood has-been? Hardly. It's another human being trying to shed light on something shitty.
We should be grateful for every star who isn't Charlton Heston or John F***ing Wayne.
Counterpunch doing it's usual excellent hard left reporting on anti imperialism provides more detail as to why we should question Clooney's efforts:
"Amnesty International, George Clooney and the Bidding of Empire
by JOHN VINCENT
In March this year Frank S. Jannuzi was named Washington DC office head at Amnesty International USA (AIUSA). Frank, a former staffer with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is Hitachi International Affairs Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most powerful foreign policy pressure group in the world. Over the years, CFR’s membership has included 22 US secretaries of state.
Those on CFR’s Board of Directors today include Robert E. Rubin, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton and special advisor to the Obama Administration; Madeleine Albright,former Secretary of State who when on 60 Minutes was asked by Lesley Stahl on the effects of U.S. sanctions against Iraq: “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” Secretary of State Madeleine Albright replied: “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it”; Peter G. Peterson, of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, who has been pushing for the destruction of Social Security for over ten years; and Penny Pritzker, Chairman and CEO of PSP Capital, who besides being one of Chicago’s wealthiest woman is also on the Chicago School Board closing public schools in the poorest parts of the city.
These are names not typically associated with humanitarian causes.
In taking his new position Jannuzi is quoted on AIUSA’s website as saying: “I am thrilled to be joining Amnesty International and look forward to connecting the passion and expertise of AIUSA with the policy-making community in Washington that I know well.”
And how might that work?
In a CFR moderated discussion George Clooney discussed the plight of the Sudanese in the Nuba Mountains who are caught up in the country’s civil war. Not surprising the area includes a proposed pipeline route that will carry oil to a seaport in the north.
So George gets arrested on Friday March 16th, and on Monday the 19th AIUSA begins an email campaign calling for Sudanese President al-Bashir to be brought to justice with the banner: What was actor George Clooney doing in jail, while Sudan’s president and indicted war crimes suspect Omar al-Bashir runs free?
Interestingly, March 16th was the day AIUSA announced Jannuzi’s new position with the organization.
So is AIUSA, along with George Clooney and Hollywood in general, supporting the CFR in their effort to manage the American people’sperceptions of Africa for the purpose of furthering their government’s foreign policy objectives in the region?
Why does AIUSA mount campaigns focused on Africa – Kony 2012, Sudan’s al-Bashir, and the investigation of civilian deaths in Libya – but not promote similar campaigns within the borders of the US calling for the arrest of its known war criminals?
And why doesn’t AIUSA mount campaigns to stop US humanitarian crimes before they occur? The Iran war is the next human rights catastrophe that will be unleashed on the world, but AIUSA isn’t trying to stop it. Why not?
Are AIUSA’s commendable humanitarian efforts being used as a screen for the organization’s work in the service of the American empire?
John Vincent lives in Burlingame, California."
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/21/amnesty-international-george-clooney-and-the-interests-of-empire/
Exkiodexian, this isn't really "activism" at all but rather some clueless center right liberal being used a prop to inflame more hatred against Muslims in power, to justify an Africom intervention in Africa as a prelude to stealing oil and mineral resources. Since American imperialists have done a pretty good job of carving up the middle east, the next stop is recolonizing Africa under the false rubric of "humanitarian intervention," don't fall for it and be a tool of empire. Lets let Africans engage in self determination for change and let them work out their extremly complex problems regarding different groups access to resources on their own, OK?
So yes it IS white imperialism now being sold to naive and guileless NPR listening "liberals" and "progressives," as opposed to the cowboy interventionism sold to (neo) conservatives on Fox, same shit, different shine.
Whether Cloney is naive or a manipulater, who knows, it is known though that Angelina Jolie actively works on projects for the Council on Foreign relations (CFR)
"Informational CFR video, featuring Fareed Zakaria, Brent Scowcroft, Angelina Jolie, Brian Williams, and Erin Burnett."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations
so some of these actorvists do engage in deliberate manipulation on behalf of western imperialism.
It is a shame to read the diatribes on this thread that contribute little to actually attempting to broaden exposure to the situation. This is emblematic of problems faced by peoples attempting to get messages into the western main stream media.
Here is a December 23 2011 piece that provides some background:
http://futurechallenges.org/local/land-grabs-and-post-war-development-in-south-sudan/
I don't know whether Clooney's work will help or hurt Sudan, but I do know that Clooney supports Barack the Baby Killer Obama and that BTBKO will harm the people of Sudan, just as he has harmed the innocent people of every other country he has invaded.
It sounds like a call for intervention, which should work well because we have had so much practice.
The entire Hollywood class belongs to the 1%. Bill Maher never saw a Muslim he wouldn't want to see dead and gave $1 million a month ago to an Obama pac. Clooney has donated the maximum allowed to Obama.
I'm with you tomcarberry. You nailed it regarding Clooney and Barack.
Regarding Clooney's attempts to get involved in Sudan's conflicts, the part i never understand about Hollywood celebrities getting involved with other countries in distress is why they think they can make a difference? George Clooney doesn't live in Sudan. To my knowledge he isn't connected to the rhythms of the place, the people, the regional inuendos or the pulse of any side. it always seems like self promotion under the guise of selflessness. I don't blame the author one bit for harboring a gripe.
Elizabeth Tjader,
Maybe because actors like Clooney play the hero so often they think they became the hero. The very rich liberals have a sense of self-righteousness that makes my teeth curl from the sweetness. As Kurt Vonnegut said, "You are who you pretend to be."
Bingo again! I love the image of teeth curling. I'll have to remember that one!
Clooney lost me big time when he accused those of us who are disgusted with Obama of being "whiny babies who need to grow up" or something to that effect. It was bye-bye George after that.
I didn't hear that. Thank the gods I haven't grown up.
Clooney is a CFR empire stooge, see my article I linked from counterpunch above.
For those who would like to join Amnesty International in calling for the arrest of "... Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who remains at large despite being indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur. "
http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=6oJCLQPAJiJUG&b=6645049&aid=517387&msource=W1203EAIJ1
Here is a taste of the global land grabbing dynamics at play in the region
http://oaklandinstitute.org/open-letter-government-ethiopia
Celebrity And Its Limitations
Nesrine Malik
If the Hollywood celebrity contingent puts you off -- and not without good reason -- then acknowledge the work of a quiet, intrepid, long-term, dedicated, unsung activist and advocate for the people of Sudan, and his laser-sharp criticism of the policies of Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, to wit:
Eric Reeves -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Reeves
Sudan Research, Analysis, and Advocacy
http://www.sudanreeves.org/
Eric Reeves is Professor of English Language and Literature at Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts. He has spent the past thirteen years working full-time as a Sudan researcher and analyst, publishing extensively both in the US and internationally.
Professor Reeves has testified several times before the Congress, has lectured widely in academic settings, and has served as a consultant to a number of human rights and humanitarian organizations operating in Sudan.
Working independently, Professor Reeves has written on all aspects of Sudan's recent history. His book about Darfur (A Long Day's Dying: Critical Moments in the Darfur Genocide) was published in May 2007. (Read critical praise for A Long Day's Dying.)
Eric Reeves - Archive of essays published in The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/ericreeves
If George Clooney and Sean Penn and Angelina Jolie and the like tend to be cloying and simplistic and self-serving and see the world in Manichean shades of black and white, good and evil, then read the work of Professor Reeves, who presents his views of Sudan with all the painful complexity and nuance worthy of the catastrophe that the conditions on the ground in Sudan have presented to the so-called international community since the mid-1990s.
Finally, Professor Reeves has been engaged in his tireless and relentless work on behalf of the people of Sudan while battling leukemia with which he was diagnosed in 2003. He just published his latest pieces on Sudan two days ago -- see http://www.sudanreeves.org/ -- for his criticism of the Obama administration and its inaction and neglect of the vast humanitarian crisis in Sudan.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cLooney is a lackey of the power class.
He's an activist when it's in the interests of his owners.
Just love the way the usual suspects love to heap scorn on well-meaning liberals when they attempt to do their share in their own way. Are they not aware of his body of work which includes "Syriana", "Darfur Now", "Good Night and Good Luck" and "The Ides of March"? So, he's not Woody Guthrie or Joe Hill. He's a Hollywood figure that has consistently delivered a progressive message to audiences of millions. I wish some folk that haunt these threads would grow up from a perpetual state of bitchyness and look at themselves to ask what they have done that in any way compares to George Cloony's accomplishments. Good night and good luck!
Tony Vodvarka
Agreed.
Kudos.
Endless snotty bullshit, do you "get" that? Did you "get" your education in a playground?
Yeah, how dare he actually go to Sudan and talk to people there, which is what he did. He could have been on his computer, criticizing the activism of others! Now that is REAL laptoptivism.
"It is an analysis that reduces Africa to simple notions of good versus evil, and suggests that outsiders hold the key to finding solutions"
The issue raised by the author of the article works both ways. The author apparently doesn't understand the political complexity in Merka, that Clooney's approach addresses adequately. He's trying to divert a sliver of Merka's attention that is normally consumed in total by petro-fried bread/circuses. That African politics are complex is not surprising. That Africa deserves a lot of the attention that's being wasted in the great petro-fryer is beyond doubt. But the complexity created in both Africa and outside Africa, particularly in stoned Merka is itself a serious issue - complexity is absolutely unnecessary. Complexity is a racket to enslave the people. The people themselves can easily boil experience down to simple good/bad. Nature is good. Universal solidarity, equity, justice, and enlightenment are good. Peace is good. Cooperation is good. Everything is simple, and the people can grab a hold of it, ... UNTIL elites stalk the debate and hiss their venom to melt the coherence. They inject wicked complexity into the dialog, about patriotism to some godzilla institution, reverence to some mythological god, to paralyze the people. Look around - the people are paralyzed. And the author complains that we don't see the complexity? Complexity is the lie of the ego. The people don't need it. And the big news of the day is the people are coming to realize this in droves.
Well said.
Mr Malik,......Perhaps a little more time spent on research and a little less _____.
If you had checked you would have found that Mr Clooney did bother to explain the situation in complete detail in more then one forum but I will refer you to the Charlie Rose Show interview where he described the nuances of the war just as you did.
Mr Clooney realizes that to draw attention to an issue in America it has to be reduced to two minute soundbites and must be sold with pretty packaging. Regardless of the politics and historical differences you have a group of people who cannot get their crops in the ground which means hunger in the near future. So is it basic human rights like food or should we just stick with "it's complicated" as you suggest.
reallycurious is one of those names like Healthy Forest Initiative and Free Trade that are the opposite of what they imply.
Clooney has no need nor desire for self-aggrandizement. He's merely using his notoriety to call attention to something little known of and awful, and he's not doing from his lazyboy.
I'll bet you 10 dollars Clooney calls for "humanitarian" intervention, which is nothing but a toe hold for Africom to try to rerun the British colonialism of Africa as American colonialism, so I feel free to think Clooney as an asshole and a tool..
You're so right Nesrine. Clooney and the rest of the world have no business trying to assist in any way they can regardless of how the Sudanese may feel about it. It's time to leave Sudan alone to work out their issues themselves. After all, look what has become of America after it opened it's doors to the world! We've had everyone enter through open doors to bring their ideas and work ethics and all we have done is prosper. It's sick. I'd much rather have remained third world, unassisted, sickly, at poverty level with genocide the daily chat.
The only "helping" that is going to take place is Africom helping oil and mining companies strip the country of resources for western corporations.
Nesrine Malik makes a good point in that outsiders can never really know the ins and outs, customs, history, goods and evils of a foreign country. She makes a point that affects us all on a global scale. There are many people, myself included who find the killing and war an unbearable spectacle and thus feel compelled to do 'something'. There begins the problem... we wade in thinking we know what is best when in actual fact we do not. The answer lies in the country itself and hard, heartbreakingly unbearable as that is, maybe we have to let it be so. With a plausible route which the people of the country, of all factions, be allowed a voice to express their wishes. Much, much more should be done to help sort these disputes out rather than pile in with a truck load of guns in the name of peace. Mr Clooney has done nothing but good in that the issue is once more in the forefront of our minds, more publicly known figures are needed to do this, it is not an easy path to take, for there are snipers only too ready to take them down.
Clooney should be arrested for being a shill for the Pentagon and Big Oil. Well, for that and stupidity.